Andre van Tonder scripsit:
> No, the code would not break. The proposed change (not requiring
> a return value but still allowing it) would change little for your
> purported user. His preferred implementation will remain compliant on
> this /without any change/, and he can continue to program as before.
> The only thing that changes is that he cannot rely on this behavior as
> being portable.
Right. That is to say, it works fine on all R5 implementations, but not
on all R6 ones. It is a backwards incompatible change. Such changes
can be made, but they require a threshold that was not met, and there's
no point in moaning about it now. If new *evidence* is brought forward,
that's another matter.
--
[W]hen I wrote it I was more than a little John Cowan
febrile with foodpoisoning from an antique carrot cowan@x
that I foolishly ate out of an illjudged faith http://ccil.org/~cowan
in the benignancy of vegetables. --And Rosta
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports